Monday, February 25, 2008

Ranking Hall of Merit Players Not in the Hall of Fame: Group 4 (NA, NeL and Banned Players)

These candidates are beyond the purview of either the BBWAA or the Veterans Committee. They either had most or all of their careers before the start of the National League, played in the Negro Leagues or were banned from Cooperstown.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm career over peak, NgL rep almost as much as stats, and I ding guys for things like tossing a WS or benefitting from a rule (fair-foul bunt) that was not in effect for the past 130 yrs, or being preceived as a detriment to your team. Pete's crimes have little to do with his ranking as a ballplayer.

(2) Jackson--Forgetting the gambling, overrated.
(3) Grant Johnson--In the top half of the HoM, but I'm not sure where.
(4) Beckwith--Even with his baggage, top 10 3B.
(5) Barnes--Very short career, but easily the best player in baseball. Would rank first if he played at that level for four more years.

125-180 All-Time
(6) McVey--I was one of his biggest backers but still have him as a slightly below median HoMer.

175-230 All-Time
(7) Trouppe--Big dropoff after the top six. Very close with Lundy and Oms.
(8) Lundy--For these ranking it matters very much whether he was a 106 OPS+ guy or a 98.
(9) Oms--A nice catch on our behalf.
(10) Pike--Made my PHoM during one of the softer ballot periods and I'm happy to keep him there, but there are enough issues with his career to sort him to the bottom of this tough list.

Not PHoM
(11) Moore--I voted him #1 for several years but ultimately dropped him when our later numbers showed him to be not quite as dominant for not quite as long as I originally thought. For peak/prime candidates, those little differences matter a lot.
(12) Pearce--Sorry. I still think he was the best kid on the block where this newfangled games happened to be invented who turned out to be a solid but unspectacular player once the rest of the world cottoned to the game.

Well, Pearce had OPS+s of 106 and 100 at age 38 and 39. That would be solid but unspectacular at age 28 and 29. It's quite impressive at his actual ages, though.

I suspect I'll have Jackson No. 1 on prime basis.
Rose is pretty peakless, and benefits in some systems for irrelevant "wouldn't quit" mediocre performance (he's hurt in other systems for same; I pretty much throw the latter part of his career away, taking a middle ground there).

Barnes and McVey I like better than Pike.
Johnson and Beckwith among the NeLers.

1. If I decide a priori to look the other way on Petey's crimes but not Jackson's, well, yeah, Pete comes out ahead.

2. And if I decide a priori that 1876 is magic and that the rules that pertained in those days make it not baseball, then a lot of these guys are beyond discussion. (I could ding a lot of guys for pitching off a high mound by this logic. The fair-foul rule was in force about as long.)

In short, there will probably be a lot of volatility in these rankings because here is where different rules of engagement a) are out there and b) affect the outcomes pretty decisively.

My rule is to be fair to all eras, but I don't know yet what that means for a ballot.

Well, Pearce had OPS+s of 106 and 100 at age 38 and 39. That would be solid but unspectacular at age 28 and 29. It's quite impressive at his actual ages, though.

What shortstop performed as well at such a late stage of his career during the 19th century? None. That Pearce was able to still be in the game contributing during that rough-and-tumble era is a testament to his greatness, IMO. IOW, I'm with you, Howie.

I wouldn't call Rose peakless; there some very good years there. Offensively, I have his best year as 1969, followed by 1972, 1973 and 1968. But Jackson's offensive peak was higher. Make of this whatever you want to; more than one spin is possible.

That's essentially the only information I have to share; I have so little confidence in the relative ranking of the Negro League and very early players that I may sit the vote out.

I never post in these types of discussions, but I can't resist this time. How is a barehanded C/1B with a career 152 OPS+ not one of the top 10 most amazing players of all time? And a 161 ERA+ pitching one year as a bonus. I mean Jackson and Rose were great and all, but hardly unprecedented.

I never post in these types of discussions, but I can't resist this time. How is a barehanded C/1B with a career 152 OPS+ not one of the top 10 most amazing players of all time?

Because the OPS+ has to be taken in context? Deacon White was a bare-handed catcher for the whole length of McVey's career, except for one season at first base. He was an excellent defensive catcher--52 FRAA, according to BP's WARP1, while McVey was an average defensive catcher---2 FRAA, according to BP's WARP1.

McVey was a little bit better as a hitter than White, but White's defensive edge of more time and catcher and better defense at catcher, surely makes him the better player of the two.

So were two of the ten most amazing players in baseball history active at the same position during the decade of the 1870s? It's not impossible, of course, but I think a more likely interpretation is that playing catcher did not have quite the same offense-suppressing quality in the very early game (for one thing, catchers didn't crouch, and catchers didn't start losing playing time vs. other positions on a seasonal basis until the 1880s, though they were more injury-prone), although it was clearly the weakest hitting position after pitcher, except perhaps for shortstop. Also, standard deviation on OPS+ was very high in those days. Both McVey and White earned only 5 top-10 OPS+ finishes for their gaudy totals (McVey 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 and White 1, 3, 4, 6, 8), all for seasons of 145 OPS+ and up. So a 150 OPS+ in the 1870s (esp. 1871-75) is probably equivalent to a 130 OPS+ in the 1970s.

Thanks that helps, and I inexplicably forgot about White. Hitting that well with the same hands as you use to catch pitches barehanded still amazes me though. Foul tips and all must have really hurt. I'm imagining it was something like a wicketkeeper's job in cricket and they're really padded up.

I've never taken the time to get the bottom four "correct" like I have with the rest. That will be the focus of this period. Jackson isn't getting credit for the years he played after throwing the World Series. If I gave him that credit it would boost him to just behind Grant Johnson.

I agree with the majority in putting Barnes and Johnson at the head of the two groups. For Johnson that is based largely on his role for teams of such quality for so long. That's enough to put the point estimate up there above those with better records.

Why McVey over Pike? Is the catcher role decisive?

Regarding the bare hands, White probably played some "up close" and probably used some protection for the hands. When Spalding used a glove as regular 1Bman in 1877 that was only for sissies and catchers. We don't know how universally how quickly in the 1870s catchers adopted some protection, nor how much protection. According to the SABR biography of White by Joe Overfield in 19c Stars, "White was said to be the first to move up under the batter." (In the margin I pencilled "everyone was first". I think White's debut at catcher was earlier than the others in my reading experience.) Overfield continues, "While with Buffalo in 1884 he and Jim O'Rourke designed a rubber chest and abdomen protector."

McVey probably used a glove sometimes as catcher. He was a regular at first base in 1875 and 1876 on Spalding's teams, so he was one of the last high-level professional bare-hand firstbasemen. I presume he used a glove as 1B-manager a couple years later, and that professional 1Bmen adopted gloves quickly.

Some glove in the early 1870s might be as little as a woolen winter glove with the finger tips cut off, I suppose.

Why don't the Pearce backers above mention his age 35-37 and 40-41 seasons?

Yes, he put up 106 and 100 OPS+ seasons at 38 and 39, but he was 76-38-88 as a fulltime player from 35 to 37 and 53-26 in a parttime role at 40 and 41. Take it all together and (even overweighing his two big seasons due to an expanding schedule) you get a good SS who put up an 80 OPS+ after age 35. Even in today's game, that isn't an HoMer; it's Omar Vizquel, only with 10 points less OPS+. Given that Vizquel isn't in my top 400 and that OPS+ numbers of the best players were much gaudier in that era, I have Pearce substantially behind Vizquel, somewhere between 600 and 100 All-Time. Sorry.

Both McVey and White earned only 5 top-10 OPS+ finishes for their gaudy totals (McVey 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 and White 1, 3, 4, 6, 8), all for seasons of 145 OPS+ and up. So a 150 OPS+ in the 1870s (esp. 1871-75) is probably equivalent to a 130 OPS+ in the 1970s.

What is that in this Big Playoff Era?

In his seven full league seasons, Lip Pike copped league ranks 2--2138 (1871-77). That '8' is for OPS+ 142 and the top threes are his four seasons at 170 and higher.

Why don't the Pearce backers above mention his age 35-37 and 40-41 seasons?

Well, I have mentioned it hundreds of times in the past, Andrew. Take his whole career from age 35 onward and compare it, warts and all, to any other shortstop that played at the same age during the 19th century. He's the champ.

1. Pete Rose. Nice peak, and just too much career for anyone else here to catch.
2. Grant Johnson. It's possible he was better than Rose, but we'd need to see his peak to be certain.
3. Ross Barnes. Placement depends partly on how much pre-1971 credit he gets. This is with two seasons. With three, he has an argument to pass Johnson, and I can see why a peak voter would have him #1. He was a barracuda in a bathtub, but he was still the best.
4. Joe Jackson. Awesome decade of play, but nothing else, and not nearly as dominant as Barnes.
5. Dickey Pearce. Hard to place, but he was the first ballplayer of sustained excellence.
6. John Beckwith. Great hitter, and played third base.
7. Dick Lundy. Deserving HoMer, but lower-tier, as are all the rest here.
8. Quincy Trouppe. Strong hitter, versatile defender.
9. Alejandro Oms. Fine prime; lost early years could have put him higher.
10. Lip Pike. Second best hitter of his era after Barnes. Four years of pre-1871 credit puts him ahead of the more versatile McVey.
11. Cal McVey. Deacon-White lite.
12. Dobie Moore. Coulda bin a worthy HoMer, but he wasn't great enough for long enough with his career cut short as it was. Not comparable to Barnes or to Hughie Jennings among pure peak candidates.

Beckwith, John
Career: 1916-38
Positions: ss, 3b, c, of, 1b, 2b, p, manager
>>
The positions played by the individual are listed in order of frequencyof appearances. Boldface type indicates the position at which a player is most strongly identified. Normal print indicates a position he played on a reasonably regular basis at some time in his career. Italicized type indicates a position played infrequently in his career, with his appearance possibly resulting only from injury to another player or other special circumstances relating to the team situation.
<<

NgL--Johnson, Moore, Lundy, Beckwith, Trouppe and Oms, am probably not willing to listen to reason ;-) I mean, I still remember these debates. The 19C, hell, didn't we talk about that in the, well, 19C?

20C--Rose beats Jackson easily, more easily than I thought

Overall, and I do mean that this is a prelim though, like I say, I'm pretty happy with my rank order of the NgLers and Rose over Jackson. Not 100 percent on the 19C and the integration of the 3 groups.

1. Pete Rose--I tried hard to avoid this but couldn't; doesn't have the peak that some do, but he's so far ahead on career it's just silly

2. Grant Johnson--the only guy I could possibly think of as a threat to Petey

9. John Beckwith--prime
10. Lip Pike--prime, Beckwith and Pike make a nice pairing I think, the arguments against being pretty darn similar (a Jew and an uppity black man). I understand that many will prefer Beckwith to Lundy but I still say if I'm building a team I put Lundy out there first, not because anybody is uppity but because one has a Hoover for a glove.

29. Howie Menckel Posted: March 04, 2008 at 08:41 PM (#2706316)We did not agree that Pike being Jewish turned out to be an urban legend?

We did not.
This is the first I've heard it. Martin Abramowitz doesn't agree and I believe he is working hard to keep up with findings by all the primary researchers on this matter.Jewish Major Leaguers (baseball cards and lecture circuit by Martin Abramowitz.

Lipman Pike, brother Jacob Pike (mlb).
Research a few years ago on whether brother Israel Pike existed, or played baseball professionally - vaguely I recall that reported in SABR Bibliography Cmte newsletter.

What that says to me is he was clearly < Cobb, Speaker, Collins and Baker and about = Crawford.

Prior to my prelim I see Jackson #2-4-5-7-8. The voter who has him #2 says he was "overrated." Chris says he was in fact "awesome" but "not nearly as dominant as Barnes." I said Barnes was "awesome" and Jackson "not quite awesome."

Read the Jay Pike bio. Wow. Somebody looked up the attendees at Lip Pike's funeral in an effort to verify who the various Pikes are. I've done some family history work but never looked at a funeral guest list. Great work.

I was also struck by this.

After his baseball career -- if he indeed had one -- Israel Pike led an apparently uneventful life. He married Rebecca Fox, raised five children and worked as a haberdasher. He passed away on February 10, 1925, in Nassau County, New York.

So the poor SOB lives 70+ years, is married with children, works and pays his own way in this world and all some GD biographer can say is he lived an uneventful life. What kind of obscurity awaits the rest of us? ;-)

15Tie) J. JACKSON -- Penalizing him for 1919 (why play the season and then toss the championship?) and 1920 (the indictments and suspensions came down with the Sox in 2nd and trailing by 1 game with 3 games to play; disruptive ain't a strong enough word). Substituting 1919 for 1918 to give credit for war work; Jackson played a number of benefit games to raise money for the Red Cross while hitting .393 in the Bethlehem Steel League; somehow, that doesn't seem like a good season for him so he may be getting too much credit.

What can I say...the link worked in the preview window. To find the article, click on the "entry point" link, then on "Enter the Site," then on "Keyword Search," and then type "Lipman Pike" on the search line. The article on his funeral should be the first one to come up.

Vaguely I recall that the Atlantics kept in touch. Maybe that was true of other prominent New York and Brooklyn clubs from the amateur era.

I know that Dickey Pearce circulated in baseball until the month just before his death. Not for the first time, in 1908 he attended the annual old-timers game and reunion that was played on an island in Boston Harbor. This time he caught cold and died a few weeks(?) later.

Charley Jones was not a part-time player for the Westerns of Keokuk. He played every game but one. The club went out of business after (memory warning) two Eastern clubs refused to play games two and three of their three-game series.

Jones played out the season (ie, played most of the season) with one or two teams in his old stomping grounds and played one game with Hartford, most likely when they visited Cincinnati.

Well, Charley Jones was not a full-time player in the NA that year - he only played a handful of games in the league compared to his rivals.
The asterisk says you were only a relative part-timer in the main league - not that you didn't play a lot of games overall.
A guy called up in August who plays 40 MLB games will be listed as "part-time," even if he played 120 minor league games.
Standard is playing at least half the games in the field of a typical team in that league.

Also, the 1G/2T designation is:
1 G describes play for THAT TEAM.
2T describes the fact that he also played for another team.

Years that GROUP IVs were on HOM ballots (* if elected that year)
in order of finish by year within this ballot group
no votes in that year, name in parentheses

FYI, Barnes finished 4th on the original 1898 ballot behind Group 3 winners White, Hines, Gore - but ahead of Group 3 contenders Start, Sutton, Richardson.
Pike led Pearce from 1898-1924, then they flipped.
Moore fell off the ballot entirely in 1934-35; Lundy did the same in 1962-63 and 1971-95 and 1997-2000. Interesting that he first returned the year after Trouppe, the last of the other Negro Leagues-type stars to get elected. Lundy got only 1 vote in 2005; by 2008, he was elected.

And that in turn resulted from a recognition that we had taken a way extreme hard line about his BB--i.e. he didn't get a lot of them, but then nobody did in the NgLs, where real men swung thebat. Once you adjust him into different contexts a little more realistically he becomes a much more valuable batter.

OCF ballot comments3. Johnson: I started him low at 11 in 1921 but as the evidence accumulated, I jumped him over several others. Was #1 on my 1925 ballot, ahead of Magee, Sheckard, Wallace. The one the recent blackball HOF committee whiffed on.

blackball committee :-)
Didn't the National League set that up in 1879?

6. Trouppe: I was always much more sold on him than on Oms, Moore, or Lundy. Spent a long time in the 5-8 range on my ballot, #3 in his election year.

What sold you on him?
--in contrast to Oms, Moore, Bus Clarkson, Luke Easter, others who didn't have a straight Negro Major Leagues career.

The one the HOF or "everyone" whiffed on.
Not on the list of 94 (stage two) delivered to the extra-special committee of five for its consideration; 39 made the ballot for the special committee. Suggestions were open (stage one), their number never reported. I suppose that Dick Gregory, George Bush, etc, were among them.